The Specificity of Pacifism

Hello all!

I hope and trust everyone is having a great week filled with productivity and merriment.  For those of you who know me well, talking theology is probably one of my favorite things to do.  I don’t necessarily enjoy arguing or debating (well, maybe), but I have always enjoyed just sitting down with a group of people, opening the Word, and making my  case for my interpretation of Scripture.  Make no mistake–I do not consider myself a Biblical scholar in any way, shape, or form.  However, I do feel I am knowledgeable and educated enough to have a coherent discussion on most Biblical doctrine.

I had the opportunity to discuss the issue of pacifism with a fellow leader in my church this week, and we had a great discussion.  This gentleman is a dedicated follower of Christ, and I have tremendous respect for him and his family.  The discussion started due to the tragic events last week in Illinois when Rev. Fred Winters was gunned down in his church during a sermon.  We were discussing this at a meeting of church leadership, when the talk turned to the Biblical support for carrying a handgun.  This quickly dove-tailed into a discussion on self-defense.  I argued that self-defense that requires you to take another’s life was not Scripturally supported.

Now, let me put this out there before this discussion goes any farther–if someone broke into my house in the middle of the night and tried to harm my family, I would do whatever is necessary to protect them.  My argument, however, is not how must of us would react, but what is Biblical.

I could point to several scriptures, but I don’t want to beat you over the head with it.  The linchpin of my interpretation is 1 Peter 2:21-23.

²¹For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you,  leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. ²² He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. ²³When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.

Look also at Romans 12:17-21

17Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. 18  If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19  Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”  20  No, “if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.”
21  Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good .

Obviously I could whip out “turn the other cheek” and “love your neighbor as yourself.”  Most of you who will read this will be familiar with those verses, so there is no need to do a detailed exegetical study on them.  At the end of the day, Jesus left an example.  He could have defended himself.  He could have called down a “legion of angels” as he says.  BUT HE DIDN’T.  Why not?  Because he was setting the example for us that evil and death can not overcome evil and death.  Martin Luther King, Jr. echoed this sentiment when he said, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

In my interpretation, these verses are very clear on how we are to respond to those who would do us harm.  We love them.  Plain and simple.  WE LOVE THEM. This is incredibly difficult in theory, much less in practice, but I believe it is a Biblical mandate for followers of Christ.  I tell you all this so I can share a section of an article I found while studying this topic.  This article was written by someone who interprets self-defense as an integral piece of the Christian lifestyle, and even goes as far to say that those who claim that pacifism is a Christian doctrine are “false prophets” and heretics.  The whole article is disturbing, but read these few lines where he is refuting the scriptures that pacifists use to explain their stance.  His words will be in all italics to avoid confusion.

Matt. 5:39
Jesus said:

“…ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee
on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Often enough, such action could be a challenge to a duel.  The action described above probably only entailed 2 smacks with an open hand, and would not necessarily include the threat of immediate lethal, or dangerous, force.  I believe the message is that whatever one does, it should not be just to protect one’s personal pride, nor should it be outside of God’s will.

Matt. 5:40
“And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

The above is about losing because one is sued.  The implication is that a person is being sued as a righteous judgment, where the one giving the cloak owes the other man the coat.
Matt. 5:44
Jesus said:

“Love your enemies.”

Certainly, if someone is about to kill you or your family, if feasible you should kill them with kindness and love.  Without a firearm, the killing could be more painful for the recipient.

Yes, you read that correctly in the last sentence.  ”If feasible you should kill them with kindness and love.”  WHAT?  Are you kidding me?  Kill, love, and kindness don’t even belong in the same sentence and this buffoon thinks they can go hand in hand.  I don’t get it.  I can truly understand someone making a Scriptural case for self-defense, it is debatable, but for someone to say you can KILL someone in love and kindness is just ludicrous.  Also, you should do it with a firearm because it hurts less?  Come on, dude.

I just wish I could hang out with this author and get an understanding of where he is coming from.  I am interested to hear your thoughts on this issue.

Discuss!

baby news

As most of you have probably ascertained through twitter and FaceBook, we were handed down the verdict on the baby yesterday….and the jury came back BLUE.

I guess you could say at this point that my mood is cautious excitement.  Just to be completely honest, and I hope to not sound like a terrible father, I really didn’t want another Hayden.  Don’t get me wrong, I love that boy with everything I have, and he is truly a blessing.  However, I have been around many families with two young boys, and things can get a little…….chaotic.

Hayden and the One Who is Not Yet Named will only be about two and a half years apart and this scares the poop out of me.  Hayden, by himself, is three handfuls and a half, and the prospect of adding a partner (in crime) to that dynamic is intimidating.  I didn’t realize how much more energy and patience boys require over girls, but suffice to say, it is a lot.  Hayden NEVER stops going.  It is one of the coolest things about him, because there is never a dull moment around the house.  However, on the flip side of that, he wakes up at 6am and doesn’t stop cranking until 8:15pm, which can be exhausting.

All in all, I think it will work out better in the long run for several different reasons.  Go go gadget bullet points!

• He and Hayden can share a room.  I really want Channing to have some privacy as the oldest, and if it had been a girl, she would have had to share her room.  She will be 7 right after the birth of TOWINYN, and that is just too old to be sharing a room with an infant.
• TOWINYN and Hayden should get along much better.  One of the scariest propositions of having a third child is that you also create a middle child. We all know how that can work out sometimes.  Had the baby been a girl, I think this really would have escalated that whole situation and Hayden would have felt really left out.  He is still finding his place, and having a little brother will give him a reference point.  A “constant”, if you will.
• Ben Nevala is trying to take over the world, and the forces of good must field warriors to offset the coming armageddon.  Baby boys=warriors.

Thanks for reading and caring about what goes on in our lives.  Peace.